040030_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
040030
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWSO40030
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Anson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
02/14/2017 EntryTime: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident a
Farm Name:
Fox Ridge Complex
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
2928 Plank Rd Sr 1621
Wadesboro NC 28170
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35' 08' Longitude:
80° 08' 07"
On east and west side of SR 1621 approx. 2.5 miles north of Ansonville, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, $ Treat
Records and Documents Other Issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector.
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Lgoon Levels
70800 = 69"
74401 = 70
74401 Dbl = 67"
74401 ISO = 102"
74401 ITW = 80"
74401 TW = 108
74402/3 = 67"
74402 D = 77"
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Robert Marble
Title Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 040030
Inspection Date: 02/14/17 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Farrow to Wean
4,000
[] Swine - Feeder to Finish
2,336
Swine - Wean to Feeder
2,000
Total Design Capacity: 8,336
Total SSLW: 2,107,360
Waste structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
BOAR
18.00
Lagoon
DEPOT
19.00
Lagoon
EXTERNAL WASH
19.00
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE BS
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE DEPOT
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE INTERN. TW
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE ISO
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE LL
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE NURSERY
30.50
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE SOW
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE TW
Lagoon
INTERNAL WASH
33.00
Lagoon
ISOLATION
33.00
Lagoon
NURSERY FINISHER
18.00
lagoon
SOW
18.00
Lagoon
WEAN
33.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS040030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn Lt_C Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 02/14/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream Impacts
Yee
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Stora-ge & Treatment
Yee
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.1 large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yee No Na No
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 100/6110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page! 3

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number.
040030
Inspection Date: 02/14/17 Inppection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yea No No No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3
Matua (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 5
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 6
Cotton
Soil Type 1
Badin
Soil Type 2
Tatum
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yea No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ E ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
El
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 02/14/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yea
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-complianoe:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33_ Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

I A it
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
040030 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWSO40030
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Anson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/09/2015 Entry Time: 08:00 am
Exit Time: 9:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Fox Ridge Complex
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 2928 Plank Rd Sr 1621 Wadesboro NC 28170
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35` 08' Longitude: 80' 08' 07"
On east and west side of SR 1621 approx. 2.5 miles north of Ansonville, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Lagoon Levels
70800 = 65"
74401 = 29"
74401 TW = 91"
74402/3 = 39"
74401 ITW = 67"
74401 DLL = 54"
74401 ISO = 96"
74401 D = 47"
page: 1

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Boar/Stud
50
❑ Swine - Farrow to Wean
3,600
❑ Swine - Feeder to Finish
3,360
❑ Swine -Gills
100
Swine - Wean to Feeder
2,000
Total Design Capacity: 9,110
Total SSLW: 2,107,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
BOAR
18.00
Lagoon
DEPOT
19.00
Lagoon
EXTERNAL WASH
19.00
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE SS
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE DEPOT
30.30
Lagvan
FOX RIDGE INTERN. TW
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE ISO
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE LL
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE NURSERY
M50
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE SOW
30,30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE TW
Lagvvn
INTERNAL WASH
33.00
Lagoon
ISOLATION
33.00
Lagoon
NURSERY FINISHER
1 B.00
Lagoon
SOW
18.00
Lagoon
WEAN
33.00
page: 2

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.1 large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
013
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0110
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsiudge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3
Matua (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Cam, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 5
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 6
Cotton
Soil Type 1
Badin
Soil Type 2
Tatum
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑
Cl
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ E ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Me
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
N ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Me
26. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑0
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e.. discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 0
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 040030 Facility Status: Active Permit; AWSO40030
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Anson Region:
Date of Visit: 03/17/2014 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Fox Ridge Complex Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1B00
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 2928 Plank Rd Sr 1621 Wadesboro NC 28170
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35' 08' Longitude: 80' OB' 07"
On east and west side of SR 1621 approx. 2.5 miles north of Ansonville, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone :
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Lagoon levels:
74401 DLL = 50"
74401 ISO = 72"
70800 = 60"
74401 = 29"
74401 ITW = 54"
74401 TW = 73"
74402D = 32"
74402/3 = 33"
Records reviewed 2/25/14.
Site visit 3117114.
page: 1

Permit:
AWSO40030
Owner - Facility :
Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number:
040030
Inspection Date:
03/17/14
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Regulated Operations
Swine
Design Capacity
Current promotions
❑ Swine - Boar/Stud
Swine - Farrow to Wean
❑ Swine - Feeder to Finish
Swine - Gilts
Swine - Wean to Feeder
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
BOAR
18.00
Lagoon
DEPOT
19.00
Lagoon
EXTERNAL WASH
19.00
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE BS
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE DEPOT
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE INTERN. TW
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE ISO
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE LL
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE NURSERY
30.50
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE SOW
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE TW
Lagoon
INTERNAL WASH
33.00
Lagoon
ISOLATION
33.00
Lagoon
NURSERY FINISHER
18.00
Lagoon
SOW
18.00
Lagoon
WEAN
33.00
page: 2

F
Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/17/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
1:10
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
El M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
& Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
■ ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
e ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No lira Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/17/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No No No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3
Matua (Hay)
Crop Type 4
SmaA Grain Overseed
Crop Type 5
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 6
Cotton
Soil Type 1
Bodin
Soil Type 2
Tatum
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
1B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No No No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 03/17/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑0
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other lssues.
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
040030 Facility Status.
Active Permit AWSO40030
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Anson Region
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02I2512013 Entry Time: 08:00 am Brit Time: 9:00 am
Farm Name: Fox Ridge Complex
Owner Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Physical Address: 2928 Plank Rd Sr 1621
Facility Scat
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Wadesboro NC 28170
us. Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 08' Longitude: 80° 08' 07"
On east and west side of SR 1621 approx. 2.5 miles north of Ansonville. NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Lagoon Levels:
70800 = 65"
74401 = 60"
74401-DBL = 66"
74401-ISO = 86"
74401-ITW = 114"
74401-TW = 100"
74402/3 = 57"
74402-D = 75"
Records reviewed 214113
Site visit 2125113
page: i

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Swine
Design Capacity
Current promotions
0 Swine - Boar/Stud
50
Swine - Farrow to Wean
3,600
M Swine - Feeder to Finish
3,360
M Swine - Gilts
100
M Swine - Wean to Feeder
2.000
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
BOAR
18.00
Lagoon
DEPOT
19.00
Lagoon
EXTERNAL WASH
19.00
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE BS
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE DEPOT
30,30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE INTERN. TW
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE ISO
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE LL
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE NURSERY
30.50
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE SOW
30.30
Lagoon
FOX RIDGE TW
Lagoon
INTERNAL WASH
33.00
Lagoon
ISOLATION
33.00
Lagoon
NURSERY FINISHER
18.00
Lagoon
SOW
18.00
Lagoon
WEAN
33.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS040030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes NNe Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%/10lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Nay)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3
Matue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 5
Cotton
Crop Type 6
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Soil Type 1
Badin
Soil Type 2
Tatum
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15, Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
II & Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
MEI
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
NO Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
[]
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWSO40030 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 040030
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ke
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other lssu-s
Yes
No Na No
2B. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Itype of visit: p compuance inspection V uperation Keview V structure Evaluation U Iectinical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: O® Departure Time: County: Region: F07C
�j
Farm Name: ! Lig I Owner Email:
Owner Name: V?", Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: �
Facility Contact: r Aj Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
$wine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
I
Daia Calf
Feeder to Finish
3
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , P,onI
Ca acity
P.o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
too
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
-
Other
,xarnmrna�xs.:eas,. . _ _ _.-ra�.....u.a�sa.::
an:e.nx-•,—. ..•,^.-eswx_
Other
ryrrsw� �.: e:,
. -, � r..::
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
FZ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
0 Yes
❑ No
® NA
r
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[�TNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: - 5 - /3r
'Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 70800 `7 ciLl o t 7W61-POL 7q qt>/ iW 7 c(D -T7zj 7Y Llo -1 ZJ
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): LP
G0 //
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
F�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9_ Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[;3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes 0 No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13_ Soil Type(s):
14_ Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
❑ NE
❑ Yes
lB No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
[�jNo
TFNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Qa No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? (:]Yes No
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F] No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and i" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [?g No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [�j No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ONE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -_.W Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes fig No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29_ At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Comments (refer to question #):
Use drawings of facility to better
547,4c4l,v, .7
In
�q 5
s4"L
9 9�0 2- --p J �
any YES answers and/or any addi
situations (use additional pages as
�eco�tQ s 2e . - ?",j
s.4-e Vs4-~ ffa6j
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes jja No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes QjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
nns or any other comments.
Phone: % 3-F Too
Date: .3
1412011

r
Type of Visit ! Compliance Inspection O operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: f'--` Arrival Time: .'O� /+ Departure Time: �i County:
Farm Name: `�q ) — l •� 9X +V� C C061 p Owner Email
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ Title:
N
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: > `C_if irro
Back-up Operator:
Region:
Phone No:
Integrator:L2,J
Operator Certification Number: P/6 7
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = c = I = " Longitude: = ° = i
Swipe
Design. Current
Capacity P,opulatioit
Design `-- Current
Wet Poultry Capacity -population
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
e4040
❑ Non -Layer
❑Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
O
❑Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Afo CO❑
Dry Poultry
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
-
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
Gilts
❑ Non -La ers
El Beef Feeder
Boars
S�
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
-- -j.
Turkeys,
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
MNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
[NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
CN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

1. .
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No T NA ❑ NE
Structure I StrrrrurcDture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1 �{ T O I nqy o 1 -DID[ '?q qo I—y50 '1 `[ q U f -ET -7Y 110 —TW
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): V l t 2-2-j 3tl %�o fr
7 tt
q0k
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
KR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
�E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) C W44, JOh . �4
44IP7
13.
J /
Soil type(s) n 1�'Jiyr✓ t-�+n'�•/tp�i'j,G3�t`L�
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 11 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes [P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes I? No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
rW,'etWJ 2,/1 / I
n`k4oa/3
L4511
54ru� 8
q()a b
b `{ r
Reviewer/Inspector Name 0" 1pff Phone:910 -- 33c�v
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 1 11
Page 2 of 3 12128/04 C:onnnuea

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
An
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge`?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
[INA
[INE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem?
❑ Yes
vpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31 _
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
(M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings
L
Page 3 of 3 12128104

I ypr o1 v esit. W %—Umpuance inspection v vperauun neview V structure mvatuanon V i ecnuicae Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: I 07,'&Ca—, I County:
Farm Name: 44 y 0 _1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: bp(t) t.LL Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: I e Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: B Integrator: f ~ l jt.(/ 0toam
Certified Operator:
Certification Number:
Bach -up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
"
a
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop. 'Vet Poultry Capacity Pop. MA&U-4--jIg',` Capacity Pop~.
Layer DairyCow
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish}
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P.o_ul
Cap aci Pao
Non-Da'try
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
GiltsI
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Pullets
3 Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other Other
Discharges and Stream lmoacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[:]Yes
'7' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
TT
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
V3 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page ] of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -so jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 70sw rl yo ( 7q�l� al_pgL, 7` q0j %0-7ggpC-rrw '1�fYo1l�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): MU_ 97%9
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [5g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes �9 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jP No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.))
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14_ Do the receiving crops
from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
Ep No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
IF No
❑ NA
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ Yes No DNA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application ElWeekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Tran fers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes N No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [jj,No
❑NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
NE
NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facitiq Number: -30 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 471
No [] NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes 1�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes [P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes No
0
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
5-Pr Q C-" r 41",
1 ` q0`,6
R
ec S rep 1`"edl
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 910 3' Iv
Date: A2-
2/4/2011

0
030
Type of Visit C6�ommpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit G<Outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3-2 Arrival Time: 7: DQ RM Departure Title: 7 %a0 ,rr County: AIVSA&Region: FlLO
Farm Name: Z 7*!!6Q/ Fox RAC, 4�0;~'p laX _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: M-8rOwAI L-LC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: mike CL4dd Title: LN M wta�,rux�� (Phone No:
Onsite Representative: I Integrator: A4- $4a:,./n!
Certified Operator: .�l��G ���'yC//
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number: / 76 3 5;/
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o ❑ I ❑ Longitude: ❑ ° = ❑
Design Current
Design
C►urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry
Capacity
Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
J❑ Non -Layer I
I
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wea 3502 Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
Gilts
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Co
© Boars 0
El Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes G No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No11-11
ff NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 2 A ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [ k ❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo
< El NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

�Jur,IGN
-7,tL�o2/3
Facility Number: Oaf —030 Date of Inspection 3 — obs�r, F,$ ZZ �J 30
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 31Z Structure 4 Structure i. eStructure 6,aeAT-,,,,k
Identifier: 7049rOQ 7q*0j s� 77'-Sf-ol Dbi 75�if0/ !So 75�5�Ol�l w '71f5�Of,T"1✓
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard to
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [I Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type (s) %r�+/`!l!'6ex.✓S Hof �iz"'"d1,. /�Sfkt �/.� �/4/ac�s'>'ilr)
.5+lclayw�*c.�,
13.
Soil type(s) ?Ai r ti1 , / Q +L4 H,
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
CQmnnentsj refer to question # • Explain iiiy, YES.. "answers and/or "y recommendations or v.—.other comments
Use drawings:of facility to better explain situations (use additi al pages as: necessary)
' r- Se• If r� c +'fed `
4, LaSob 7*y0/ Af 18� �`N�s i s cove. p
P iR, i o-F Ac4 ii 6 N PiiA
Reviewer/Inspector Name e Lk4 Pe.Velt`s Phone: 9/0 —5'33-3300
Reviewer/lnspectorSignature: R.�e"a1 Date: 3-2j�- ZO/0
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Q,�c —o3p Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes CRINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps
p [I Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rain Inspections 0 Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ElYes 'j�_f' No ❑ NA El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes 93/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
U Yes
ElNo
Lj NA
U NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
�
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
3 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
"No
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
El
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
U fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review C) Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Beason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time: Departure Time: ' �lE County: AgS"^" Region:
�
Farm Name: _ �� i-� jj Gn,a le se Owner Email:
Owner Name: /' 11.LE RL " l aw' , L,C_ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: ((��
Facility Contact: Bu Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 11 Integrator: i' kK1l9 _ P0rb 1 k% LI C
Certified Operator: MIctoe.( CUD Operator Certification Number: �S� 33
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 = d =41 Longitude: = o = 6 = «
` Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
Design'
Capacity
Current
Po ulation:Wet<Poultry
fik
;�. Design Current
- Capaty Population
❑ Layer
_
Design Curreut
MI.*
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
o'ZCY`
❑ Non -Layer
❑Dai Caif
Feeder to Finish
33
airy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
$
Dry Poultry
El Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
r;
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
Gilts
QQ
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
91 Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Puults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number.of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
tpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
b_ Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
�INA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
�p NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1;b90
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
`�No
El NA
El NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — D
Date of Inspection L
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ NoPONA ❑ NE
Skructure t Structure 2 S ctur 3 _Structure 4 Structure Structure /6
Identifier: OAS COOT !`� 7-- `44' 1
Spillway?: "S S.
Designed Freeboard (in): ry
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 y 11 l S�`I / O y
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes )n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes V�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area f;, , 6MM L
12. Crop type(s)I
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
11No
❑ NA
❑ NE
PD No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�No
El NA
El NE
�No
❑NA
El NE
(Z)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #}: Explain any I ES answers and/or any recommendations ar any other comments.
[3se drlIalIwing,,s/�of facility to better explain situations. {use additional pages as necessary)VW
I l �
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: �/D —V13 33
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: r ZO
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Ll_90 IDate of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ONE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA 1P NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Ni.Irrtr iLtii
rr_'
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): a C i
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA F'' NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA WNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA 7F NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA �j NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside off,Acceptable Windjoow� ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplicattio�nOutside of Area
�
�Crop
�f
r, C,1e,—
12. Crop tYPe(s)`Vl""_"c'gdi �d`'IY�CQI'iSr`�r�h.�
t
13. Soil type(s) _)VU y11 f i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[3NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
M NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[P NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
M NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[11 NE
Comments (refer_to.question 4) Explain any YES answers and/or any. recomtaenda iffis or aay other4comments
Use drawings of facility to better explatn s�tttattotis (use additinbal pages as necessary) I !a
Reviewer/lnspector Name �: Phone: '�0�%3_3_R�o
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: —20 -�0_
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ Wup [] Checklists ❑ Design
g El Maps [3 Other
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
[I NE
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2 1. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 I. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
MNo
ElNA
ElNE
ElYes
ElNA
ElNE
❑ Yes
,bNo
C_XYvo
[INA
ElNE
❑ Yes
I allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes 1pNo ❑NA El NE
❑ Yes ?D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 09)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additiona 4 rnmeuts andlorwDr=,aw ngs.
i
H
Page 3 of 3 12128104

V Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Q 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Ageney
Type of Visit 40 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Is Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: V • ccaCounty: 4Y Region:
Farm Name: C'Owner Email:
Owner Name: U-4 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: g
Facility Contact: r Title: Phone No:
1 A
Onsite Representative: Integrator:��p
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = 0 0 ` 0 " Longitude: Q ° = 6 = {f
Design ` Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder Q
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts 1
Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design
Cattle Capacity ' 1?l
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Humber of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA T NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[P NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
CA NE
❑ NA
[ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[P NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ONE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: VEjol
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA P NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NNE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
53 NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[�NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E'NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ERNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[� NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop 0,v (s C&v-yl
Pe(s) Nl l�f t! t tQ W5,,L
13. Soil type(s) &LA , M
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ERNE
15_ Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ZONE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
PNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
WNE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): c
- A LJA 14fe conty [e, c �� 5perl6n
Q finer coy, c� Ion -s.` err
I, I
On 1 �0� S c{�bc, Aq 5 � re-Sc�ao4,,(st v� - r �I 2 09
ReviewerA nspecto r Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 27 Date of Inspection E1%W
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
the appropiate box_ ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21 _ Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 1P NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 1P NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
9NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
EANE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
1PNE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[P NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
MNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[�j NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E� NE
Comments and/or
12128104

l W Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: f 15 (} Arrival Time: 7 J Q� Departure Time: �� County: S 8N Region:
Farm Name: rlOwner Email:
Owner Name: n LLC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ►� 'W Au#naay Title:
Onsite Representative: 0
Certified Operator: Clad
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: Ue-g 6W )I
Operator Certification Number: 25 2-33
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =0 0 4 = « Longitude: = ° [� d 0 «
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to,Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
N
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes q1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
CP NA
❑ NE
to NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

` Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
29NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Struct e 3 Structure 4
Structuire 5
Structur
b(
identifier'0.
!t7`7v�
LL
dtA
Spillway?: �aS
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): ��� ®N �{� 6 y
��
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes U3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes D3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 1p No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I& No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[13 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
tS No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name ` Phone: y/0 3--1,300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 04,
12128104 Continued

r 4
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
)��orage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure Structure g Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: j 11570Li �
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
n h
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA ❑ NE
Structure 5
Structure 6
1PNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No 1P
NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes Cl NoVINA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No [PNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No [NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? 11
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No A 1-1NE
El Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ll`
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(� NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
4'
Comments (refer to question #): Explain am YES answers and/or any recomm�endahons or anv other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as tcessary).
�..
a
ReviewerAnspector Name a Phone:ez-
Reviewerllnspector Signature: UMA4 jh,hk Date:
Page 2 of 3 1 12/28/040� Continued

. Facility Number: — 0 Date of Inspection S 4�
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21 _ Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r_1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes $1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[j�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
V] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Division of at Quality
Facility Number 3D Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency.
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 131,21,01 1 Arrival Time: County:
I / �� Departure Time: /p•30ctM ty: /� Region: �/Qf�
'
Farm Name: 1 �- r-h le Owner Email:
M
Owner Name: l t I tT� V _ u-C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 13kVvt8_CU1'•n t?Y _ Title:
it
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: �' CLjtk
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: le 11�1' Pi?1a7 r�
Operator Certification Number: )SA33
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =1 e =1 Q u Longitude: = o = i = «
Design Current
Swine C*apaciiy4Pulatinn
Wet Poultry
Design CuMut
Capacity Population
Design
@attle Capacity
C•ucrent
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder I !ROM I I OW
Non -Layer
❑Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish 1 33601
❑ Dairy Heifer
Wean
Dry Poultry
��
❑ D Cow
ElNon-Dairy
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
ElNon-Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
❑ Other
❑Turke Poults
❑ Other
Number of Strue#ores:
Farrow to
Discharges
�
3
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
fl
O0
[ Q
Boars
&Stream Impacts
1.
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑Yes
❑ No
�1 NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
1P NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
❑ No
C% NA
❑ NE
2, is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
Jk No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
L �S
C Lr%X, L a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No V NA ❑ NE
[pY�qv Structure 1 .r Struc re 2 Structure 3 �StTguurr 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
ire L wRs �uJ �rnn S
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 1�1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
througb a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
T Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes F No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require NA NE
maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No El NA
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
IL Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12, Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) Bgd4n, T1171uh3
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
E] Yes
ER No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer ta`question #): Explain any YES-answers�and/or any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary): i
LL(��
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:�lb �3,3C,0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 07
Paee 2 of 1212 104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection l,IJ
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ yes 8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑ Maps
p El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ;B No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
E4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other ]Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ggNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[�No
El
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
ff
31 _
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspectionn with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

{j
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: % .3 t7 County: A to iri""
Farm Name: i�0 X F, c Owner Email:
OF
Owner Name:. /W at' QXy / Y►'tS _ Phone:
;Flailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 011elAieTitle:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Region: t2:0
Phone No:
Integrator: _
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [=] o E:]' 0 Longitude: = o =, ET
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Layer
obO /S-D ❑ Non -La et
❑ Wean to Finish
® Wean to Feeder
3Feeder to Finish
i p
8'D
Farrow to Wean
oc>
3.5 C5
ElFarrow to Feeder
ElFarrow to Finish
OGilts
DID
v
Boars
a
Jq
Other.
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
ElPullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ElApplication Field ElOther
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity .Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
El Dairy Heifer
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
ElBeef Stocker
ElBeef Feeder
ElBeef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA FINE
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

r,
Facility Number: — 3 C7
Date of Inspection D Co
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural Freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure ? Structure 3
Identifier: i` - ird �tJ
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / f
Observed Freeboard (in):
D. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observes!
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
El Yes El No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes oNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 19-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWW?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? �2LYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NF
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
r1Z
SC(1�
",vrr a��yr ih B�--yv%�` %'r t►L11�t-n� ��►ts0�- rd5� %S /�wi-n
7 V '� r
�r'n-i u ova r.�rt ot,-r i� ;2id
�� ���z,.l �1 rXL�/' `J' mil' �r fz►r: �-�'.t s. /J/` _ Sz✓ ��! . ` tz..
Reviewer/Ins p ector Name a ram" €`�'+ Phone: `�/0-( — ,S'y
i Y + ,.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: — ®7v —t)('
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -%S [7 I Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ;.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XtNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes EqNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes JQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
fO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
CK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
JK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
jZ] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Cotiim`ents-aad/or Drawings:. - -
12128104

Type of Visit oQ Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
pale of Vkit: Time: Z Cj
Faciliry Number p #
1\ot O erational Below• Threshold
M-Permitted 10 Certified [3Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or above Threshold:
Farm Name: Count-:
Owner Name: G Gj/% k Phone No: —jI _ q - S
Mailing address: __ P. 01 Q ox j g- to ___
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �l�C, �f��gM �Cr.��r` integrator: r', -,n 'b It S•,
Certified Operator: YUi f [ CI,. ok J Operator Certification Number: S -7_7
Location of Farm:
Swine [I Poultry ❑Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude
Design Current
Supine C`_unurito Pnnntatinn
Wean to Feeder
da
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
IS
_3
Farroxv to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
i 00
IN Boars
SD
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I R I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I
Waste
Discharges S Stream Impacts
1. Is an,., discharg_ observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes qNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lazoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the convevance man-made? El Yes ❑ No
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach )eater of the State? (If yes, notifi• DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is obsmed, what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Ed No
3. W e7e there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ES No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes [q No
Structure 1 Structure? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure ; Structure 5 Identifier: St w a k rh,C1L. PI'h I,Ck rt4-, f rXAC L LL 7
Freeboard (inches): SZ : `7 .� S �O e"'
05103101 Con4ued

Facility Number: A — Date of Inspection I
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes [ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
rQ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimuun liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�&No
Waste Appligation
10_ Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[�a No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
[Z No
12. Crop type TMt,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
El Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
L4 No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
D9 No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
®!No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[-No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
6] No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑Yes
� No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23_
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[29 No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
J� No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
9 No
E3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
�Cumments (refe que' I' Expl n ny YES answers and(or any, reed mmend �6ons or any o er comments. E e
Use drawttigs of�facility #o better explarn sOuations.•(:XWOn.al
pages as necessary), ❑Field CopvY ❑Fin Notes
r . t
Sait 0A L3&0 in
10%�GQ3 .
Pc.n exGe"dt L
I a toy
r--f- Co 0-n, .4-
ott-f.cY
Reviewer/Inspector Name
A,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
05103101 l Continued

Facility Number: — 36 Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
2b. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes CR No
❑ Yes �,No
❑ Yes ❑ No
O5103101

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Ms. Audry Staggs
Route 2, Box 274
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Dear Ms. Staggs:
e��
EDEHNR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 31, 1997
SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Inspection
Fox Ridge Farm (All)
Registration Nov 04-30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 06
Anson County
On March 25, 1997, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality inspected the subject swine facility. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance
Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the
information provided and observations made during the inspection that the facility was in
compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part.0217 at the time of the inspection. Please refer to the
comments section on the rear of the inspection form for information regarding your facility.
Please be aware that all swine facilities with a liquid waste collection system designed for
a minimum of 250 hogs must have a certified waste management plan on or before December
31, 1997. The district NRCS office, Agriculture Extension office, or the Division of Soil and
Water have specialist available to assist you with upgrading of existing facilities and
certification.
If You have any questions concerning this matter, please call John Hasty at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
qohn C. Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Operations Branch
Central Files
Audry Oxendine - FRO DSW
Robert Horton - Anson Co. MRCS
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville * FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 N%q
iA C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Routine O Com saint O Follow-up of DW ins ection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Otber
Fatty Number Z Date of won `zs °17
r1 Tiue of Inspecdon D ,'� % r—� Use 24 hr. time
Farm Status: Ct r- �, eA - ToW �x (in lbours) Spent oaRevtew—�—�--�
or Inspection (indudes travd and prowahW
Farm —LOX R; .� �s:�.lask
ownerName:
FS
Fbone No: L7o�L)_ -z- — F"4JZ --
I4lafliag 2-2 —Gy ad...e.� r10 /y c 2 9"l a
Oasite Representative:474drICI 4-m
Car Opp; r -la r, c s Oper m or Cer#meation Number.jj
Location of Farm:
B n ekx6+ a«d "UM+ Sid c o SR Zl "-' . fJ2Mj4V;IIe
Latitude •4 w Longitude C7•a
10 Not Operational
Type of Operation and
Date Last Operated:
Other Twe of Livestock
4'ni+N4
Number otLaoons! Holdfng Pond; �;�:z " � Subsurface Drains Present
��`�'� ��: � �.�',,.w� ��� '' F�� _ �-°,�xi.' � � �. La oats i�l'ea �•. S�!':<j� Fie�d l�rla
I. Are there any buffers that need mwuteaanccJu
2 Is any discbargc observed seam any part of the oppstsan?
a. If discharge is observed, was the ooaveyanee ?
b. If discharge is observed, did ;t reach Surface Water? (If yes, no* DWG)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the esthu ted flow in pl/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DW;y
3. is there evidence of past discharge from ate► part of the operation?
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a disc wp?
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonsIolding ponds)t inquire t7
13 Yes *a
tl Yes XLNo
E] Yes •allo
13 Yes *No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Q Yes jJ No
Q Yes Jj No
Q Yes PO No
rawf;nnad aA Mo-k

• 6r $ bcrtity not in oaanplisnce with nay aWCable ae�act a�taia? �
� Yes
�]R'o
7. Did thy: fluty fag to have a certified operator in nVomilft chop (if imspe on Aw I/M?
© Yet
;[No
L An 6= lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be p apelly cloned?
13 Yes
FNo
_ etnres fLscoons aend/or Hold n>r Poadsl
9. Is U=UW fiecbo rd less that adecpmte?
Yes
No
Fraaeboaril [ilk 3 on 1 law= 2 Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
10. b seep p obmvtd from my of do sbucknO
D Yes
MNo
11. Is esosioa, or ate► other threats to the integrity of any of the observed?
j] Yes
jz No
12. Do any of the structures need -
❑ Yes
JM No
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the sftuation poses an
Immediate pnbkc health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the sauctures lack adquate Markers to identify start and stop pang bvek?
❑ Yes
ANo
R'aste A lice d -
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
rj Ya
FtNo-
_ (If in exam of WMP, or runoff enuring waters of the Stan, natifj► D WQ)
15. 0" type
16. Do the active crops differ with those "Snawd in the Amara] Waste Management Pisa? D Yes J.No
17. Does the facility have a lark of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ;[ No
I S. Does the cover crop need improvement? D Yes IP No
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes M No
For Certified FacUides daly
20. Does the facility fail to bane a copy of the Animal Waste Management Play readily available? ❑ Yes ;$No
Zl. Does the facility fail to eamgly with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way? Q Yes ;M No
22. Does record keeping teed hPprvvem=O D Yes 15 No
23. Does facility regwe a follow-up vWt'by tame agency? 13 Yes 11 No
?A. Did Reviewer/1npector fad to discuss ne- tion with owner or operator in charge? Cj Yes IN No
Comments (refer to question I oramiy`iecw=eadah9ris'ors
Use dta„�ags'of fac?i}ty;to better clam aituauams._�tttt �ddttio� pa8es gs.nerr��„r�,�,,;;,�,�:,�,,�y,, ;„` � ���,��• " `. ` „�,'
5; tooks 5wa . Keep Lj '�"kc c10001 tee* k .
8
Reviewer/lnw,-,-Name
Revirwer/Inspector S#gnatatre: Data: 3 9
ea Division of Water Ouatity. 16M. 0.,di.v Stepan. Faritisv Asmstment Unit • ' " ' "'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Ms. Audra Staggs
Route 2, Box 274
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Dear Ms. Staggs:
e��
1DEHNR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 31, 1997
SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Inspection
Fox Ridge Farm (All)
Registration No. 04-30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 06
Anson County
On March 25, 1997, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality inspected the subject swine facility. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance
Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the
information provided and observations made during the inspection that the facility was in
compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part.0217 at the time of the inspection. Please refer to the
comments section on the rear of the inspection form for information regarding your facility.
Please be aware that all swine facilities with a liquid waste collection system designed for
a minimum of 250 hogs must have a certified waste management plan on or before December
31, 1997. The district NRCS office, Agriculture Extension office, or the Division of Soil and
Water have specialist available to assist you with upgrading of existing facilities and
certification.
If You have any questions concerning this matter, please call John Hasty at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
ohn C. Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Operations Branch
Central Files
Audry Oxendine - FRO DSW
Robert Horton - Anson Co. NRCS
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville SAW FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 Nam 4 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

F— Facgity Number 4EH=
Farm States: -- - CIE r -k &. e d - --
Date of Inspection Z
Time of Inspection - Z Use 24 hr, time
Total Time (in hours) Spent eaReview
f or Inspection (Includes travel and processing)
Farm Name • - � — �u�e .,,.�Juj �2r`, County:�`,r2LSa,� ...�.�._
Owner Name: . rn r4 C'�2vhS_. - Phone No: (70Y) 22 (o - 041 z ._.
Mailing Address:. . 2 13dx 274 5 & &6
ChWte Representative: , Id ram „,7 Lex as 5 „,_— Integrator. r
Cartifled Operator. -T �` r---- 1 Operator CertiScation
Location of Farm:
pn eas4- a..,J wesf sick of Sl2 leLl -S :les r i)r
Latitude Longitude �• �� p�
© Not 2mrational Date bast Operated:
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
. „.
Swine Number r� �'A " �Nmnber l ... k � Number M-0
"Poultry n z.
Ewer Dairy
•- Nast- Beef
k
'bt)g _; i
�
to
Ut.,w...'E*SFi�.`..
Irl Type of livestock
.�
Y.❑Other
4.
wean to Feeder
F to Finish
arrow to Wean
O d
Farrow Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Number of L>lgoons l.Haldrng Pbnds Subsurface Drains Present rl-sm La oon Area" 5 ra FieldArea
I- Are there any buffers that need maintenancel�pravement7 ❑ Yes WNo
2- h any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gl No
L If disdrarge is observed, was the conveyance nun -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it retch Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ,) ❑ Yes 0 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estnnated flow in galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) [:]Yes )M No
I Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of titre operation? [:]yes M No
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes � No
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonsUlding ponds) requires ❑ Yes MNo
maintemmcdtarprovenrtnt?
Conjinreed an back

6. Is heft not in cmvhm= with any applicable setbaclt Critatia?
Yes
)M NO
7. Did the fiwility fell too have a certified operator in responsible cbarge Cif inspection after III"?
❑ yes
PNO
B. Are d= lagoons or atotage ponds on site wbich need to be property closer.
❑ Yes
;kNO
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding U1.mdjs
9. Is MwturW freeboard less than adequate?
13 Yes
allo
rl*14(8): lj&Von I LAgoon 2 Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
10. Is'seepage observed fim any of the struchun?
yes
NO
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
E3 Yes
1)jNo
12. Do any of the stracti= need rn-inten
13 Yes
Po
(If any of quesdons 9-12-wjis answered yes, and the situation poses in
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the 3bwtures lack adquaft markers to identify SUM and stop pumping levels?
0 Yes
PNO
Waste ARRECation
14. Is them physical evidence of aver application?
13 Yes
ANcr
.(If in excess of WMIP, or runoff entering waters of the Stair, notify DWQ)
Is. crop type Le jL� 44 10
16. Do the active crops differwith those designated in the Anima] Waft Management Plan?
13 Yes
IRNo
17- Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
E3 Yes
014o
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
0 Yes
P(No
19. h them a la& of available irrigation equipment?
13 Yes
)4 No
XqLCertffied Fa ides
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Managesnaut ?Ian readily available?
13 Yes
RNO
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
E3 Yes
DING
22. Does record keeping need m*mvement?
13 Yes
10 No
Z. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
E3 Yes
XLNo
24. Did Remwer/Ingmctor fail to discuss reviewrmspection with owner or vperaLarin charge?
E3 Yes
M No
- : . 1 4
Cmrii6 fir M
6*1 1ii� Q,.-.Explain M onsr C o��Olffr ' MME cw'z
bi� ex lzlq�j
AP,
ocks good
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Rew1werAUnpector Signature-.
ec: D&Lvivn of Wxer Onalkv. Warr Omahm Secdon Facday Amminent Una 11/14196

' Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site V'esitation Record 0 q- 30
F Date:6&-O�4
Time: 11 " 10
GeneraLlnformajjqg;,
Farm Name: C=aX R, 4e -- Sa..., &,, n,- Coaaty: 94
Owner Name: M v ro" phone No:-(, kq R;t
On Site Representative: ti'_ integrator. .
Mailing Address: c - -
Physical Address/i,ocation: A- 59-1 ba. l _ice sola_.
Latitude:_ / Lon itude:i/_
Qperation Desription: (based on design characterisft)
7jpe of Swine No. of�Q T e of Poultry No. of AniniarCs D e of Cattle No. of Animals
i�o Layer�uY
❑ Nursery O Non -Layer ❑ Beef _
❑ Feeder .- F
Other7ype of Livestock Number of Animals:
Number of Lagoons: } (include in the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
Facility Inspection:
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than I foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?: Yes ❑ No?%
is seepage observed from the.Iagoon?: Yes ❑ Now
Is erosion observed?: Yes 0 Now
Is any discharge observed? Yes ❑ NoO
O Man-made a Not Man-made
Cover Crop
Does the facility nerd more acreage for spraying?: Yes ❑ No W
Does the cover crop need improvement?: Yes ❑ . No tP
(1W the crops which need improvement)
Crop type: Amr-age: r 2 -0
�GreIUD
Setback C *erfa Carr
Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application? Yes ❑ Nqq
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application? -yes ❑ _ VA
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ No.
'Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ Not
AOi -- January 174M

-
Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes ❑ Now*
Ls there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes ❑ NoM
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes 0 No)V
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes 0 New
Explain any Yes answers:
tc Fadiiry Assesawnt Uitit
DXawin�Ss or - Observa§gD&
Date: o
Use Att=hmcw YNec&d
cl,Kio
stss C-MV4Lr
o o S v c 11r1. W rS • a v n tay,
.
nor — Januw7170% ,

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
RWeitevllle Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Ms. Audra Staggs
Route 2, Box 274
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Dear Ms. Staggs:
1DEHNR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 31, 1997
SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Inspection
Fox Ridge Farm (All)
Registration No. 04-30, 29,
Anson County
27, 26, 25, 06
On March 25, 1997, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality inspected the subject swine facility. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance
Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the
information provided and observations made during the inspection that the facility was in
compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part.0217 at the time of the inspection. Please refer to the
comments section on the rear of the inspection form for information regarding your facility.
Please be aware that all swine facilities with a liquid waste collection system designed for
a minimum of 250 hogs must have a certified waste management plan on or before December
31, 1997. The district NRCS office, Agriculture Extension office, or the Division of Soil and
Water have specialist available to assist you with upgrading of existing facilities and
certification.
If You have any questions concerning this matter, please call John Hasty at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
ohn C. Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Operations Branch
Central Files
Audry Oxendine - FRO DSW
Robert Horton - Anson Co. NRCS
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville N�FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

!O Roeitine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other 1
Facility Number D 2
Farm Status: ib t r Tsi e j
Date of Inspection 1312f797
Time of Inspection Use U hr. time
Total rime (in hours) Spent onReview
or Inspection (ncludes travel and processing)
Farm Name: &C
R -,a
t ?)oar
County: e AJ ....`.
Owner Name:
r �.
[ �4
Farm 5
Phone No: C70 2 `) fr fo— 14(Z-
Mailing Address: ell
�.
�l
� 27 `t O aJeS
�a rah Al C 2 tFF(70
Onsite Representative:
t~a- flba3s
integrator.
Certified Operator. / ' J m 5 `-tx�!5 Operator Certification Number.
ANJ
Location of Farm:
easF ai.4 We&4 siale of s: - Z. a nsonvi 1
Latitude • Lopgitude �• �` C�"
13 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
of Operation and Design
6 Wean to Feeder ( (?
o a„ � •r,af
Other Tvpe of Livestock
�Nnmber of Lagoans'1 Holing Ponds Subsurface Drains Present
x Lagoon Area . Spray field �
neral
1. Are then any buffers that need mainteuancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ;5�No
I Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ; .No
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes' ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it roach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWI) ElYes [INo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWI) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes P�No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes Q No
maintenancrlimprovement?
Continued on back

6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
❑ Yes
ANO '
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible rwge (if inspection after 1/1/97)?
❑ Yes
MNo
B. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be property closed?
❑ Yes
QNo
Ntr©ctures flLagoons and/or Holding Ponds
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
❑ Yes
0N0
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
ONO
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
CqNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancehmprovement?
❑ Yes
V.No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
❑ Yes
1xNo
V4'aste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
t�No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .L!f-.... ---
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
❑ Yes
P No
I7. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
V(No
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
1� No
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ANo
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
X No
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
❑ Yes
JONo
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
gNo
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
FkNo
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge?
❑ Yes
RNo
Comments (refer w questtaa #� Ei lam any YES answers"i adlor, ry recommendahans or aa3i otlzer c ts.� u
:F ®`F)' _,�
E>:Ist dr8�wy� of fBCziity iD better a�lata stt�tat:ons _(use gddtonai`pages
5';+P- looked goad. 4
a
Reviewer/Inspector Name '�,�.e�"` »
Reviwer/Inspector Signature: Date: -7-Z.5---17
cc. Division of Water Ouafitv. Water Oualkv Section. Facility Assessment Unit 11/14/96

tacUity Number ' _
O
Division of Environmental Management ^V_
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Date." G /1
Tune: Q. —U-N
General Information_ RR
Farm Na m: t��-- ��, c � Comity:—. f T IA sod -w
Owner Name: vrn'1Rn'� rN, - Phone No rG`f�g2,_ Ru la
On Site Representative: ,z.,. Integrator. %jT
Mailing Address: Qf. &,V q_7 j
AJ t s "m , NI C-- 28 170 - -
Physical Address4-ocation: Cyr sj?-- 1 to a` 1� . r- •�,,�v`{fit
Ladtude: I Longitude:
Operation Descr3pdon: (based on design characteristics)
Type of Swine No. of Animals Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Caste No. of Animals
0 son► o Layer 0 Dairy
❑ Ntmsay O Non -Layer 0 Beef
❑ Feeder
OtherType of Livestock cx•sS - Number of Animals: s�
Number of Lagoons:�(include in the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
Facility inspection:
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than I lfoot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?:
Yes ❑
Nf�
1s seepage observed from the. lagoon?:
Yes 0
No
Is erosion observed?:
Yes ❑
N
Is any discharge observed?
Yes 0
NwCk,
0 Man-made 0 Not Man-made
Cover Crop
`7
Does the facility need more acmage for spmyiug?:
0
No O
Does the cover crop need improvement?:
Yes
(Lin the crops which need improvement)
(top type: 1�7ecc�,e_ - - Acreage:
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling located within 200 ferx of waste application?
Yes ❑
No
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application?
: Yes ❑
V(
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes ❑
No�
.Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream?
Yes 0
NR-9k,
A01— JanuwT 17j996

s.�u.uucr�azcc
Does the facility maintenance need improvement?
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Does record keeping need improvement?
Did the facility fait to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site?
Yes ❑
No
Yes U
N
Yes ❑
NAB
Yes ❑
No 0
Explain any Yes answers-
Signattine: Date: CJ
ec Facs7iry Assessment UA* Use Anacknena #-Needed
Draw# ngs or Observations:
. - - � ....pt�•1•'—w►. r� _ •en saa- _� 14' 1«i�e�Mf7 �'+a�el�Y�!v!.r'a�`«.� w �-__.
AOI — January17.1"6

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Ms. Audra Staggs
Route 2, Box 274
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Dear Ms. Staggs:
1DaHNF;Z
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 31, 1997
SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Inspection
Fox Ridge Farm (All)
Registration No. 04-30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 06
Anson County
On March 25, 1997, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality inspected the subject swine facility. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance
Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the
information provided and observations made during the inspection that the facility was in
compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part.0217 at the time of the inspection Please refer to the
comments section on the rear of the inspection form for information regarding your facility.
Please be aware that all swine facilities with a liquid waste collection system designed for
a minimum of 250 hogs must have a certified waste management plan on or before December
31, 1997. The district NRCS office, Agriculture Extension office, or the Division of Soil and
Water have specialist available to assist you with upgrading of existing facilities and
certification.
If You have any questions concerning this matter, please call John Hasty at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
/o2C. Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Operations Branch
Central Files
Audry Oxendine - FRO DSW
Robert Horton - Anson Co. NRCS
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayettevliie FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 NfV C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Fu= States: j
k cones:. Aln -5.0 u
Pbone No: 70 i Z
Maiiing Address: k L 28,5y 27ct. G e ar /U C zy n d
Omfte -ji
fir;
cermedopermor: _ &d r cc 5 :6a r, q S _- operator Cwdfimdon Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitade 0 4 a
Ll Not Operational
Type of Operation and Design
Pj Wen to Feedu
10 Feeder to Finish
Longitude �• �� ��"
Date Last Operated:
W
Number of Liigoons ! Holdrg Patids Subsurface Drains Present fi .
g � Lagoon Area Spray1'fdd Area
a ]
I. Are these my buffers that wed maintenanodnaprovammt'1 E3 Yes A10
2. Is any discharge observed fimn any past of the operation? © Yes fiqNo
a, if discharge is obscrvea, was the conveyance mast -made? El Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. aodfy DWQ) 13 Yes 13 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the eukated flow is galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a Iagoon syrtem? (ifym uodfy DWQ) © Yrs ❑ No
3. Is there evideam of past discharge from any part ofthe opaation? ❑ Yes 9No
a. Was there any advusa impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? .. Q Yes ;9 No
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other thaw lagoonsUlding ponds) require L] Yes gm
main OWCEMM.1

I. Is fi C-ft not ion oompliaaM with any appliC" n6ack aiteria? O Yes NO
7. Did the facility fats to have a certified operator in responsible drape (if inspection star In/M? D Yes ;kNo
8. Asa these 1ngoons or awmp ponds on site which need to be pwpa ly ciceed? 13 Ya No
Struthtrtis (Lagoons and/or HoldisL Pondsl
9. is sbuctmW freeboard less than adequate? r] Yea No
1 reeboard (ft): ` .?1.agooa 1 Lasm 2 Lagoon 3 lagoon 4
10. Is aepsge observed frnam any of the xftuckffW
11. Is er+osioa, or tmy other eta to �s ► of gay of thz obsservod'1 -
12. Do any of the smmovt s nerd
of any of questions 942 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public )health or environmental threat, Daft DWQ)
13. Do any of the atructwu lack adgnate marks to identify sm and snap pumping levels?
Waste A29LC2- inn
14. Is theft physical evidence of over applirstion?
(If is excess of WMP, or rugoff entering warm of the State, notify DWQ)
15. drop type I -CA
16. Do the active crops
with t3:ose designated in the Animal Waste Maaagement Pba?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land appliedion?
18. Does the cover crop aced improve
19. Is d= a lack of available itfpdon equipment?
Eorcertified Faeflftfes thtly
20. Does the facfiity sail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in gay vay?
Z- Does record keeping need iapaveammV
23 Does facility require a follow-up visit by came agency?
24. Did iteviewer/laspaxor fail to discuss reviewer wih owner err open � eha:ge?
Q Yes KNo
Li Yea �(No
Ya PfNo
13 Ya �No
L] Yes tkNo-
Yes E3 No
13 Ya 046
E3 Yes ;WNo
13 Yes XNo
17 Yes 'KNo
XY0 ONO
13 Yea ;,No
0 Yes 13 No
© Yes Sso
Camme is (refer to question #�: l xplasn �ry�tfi5, aasweas wrtdlor In recamtneadat:ons lr- yw rc�ro�
WL{ ii • A Y
Ufe'drawmgs affactllty,tobcttcr p�lam 6ttUahClts. �itoli8�,p8�eS aS�IIet�► '�'" x" gas x� h * '•
# Jb. K•�e or Cwfs ©verseect heed -- be a.c�ed +o Ca 43MP
Revirwerftspector Name -'
Revirverilnspeetor Signature-. Date» 3 -1 S 97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Murphy Family Farms
Fox Ridge
SR 1621
Wadesboro NC 28170
Farm Number: 04-6
Dear Murphy Family Farms :
I9;WA
A4 • •
r �
C)EHNFl
August 14, 1997 RECEIVE)
AUG 1 4 1997
FAYETTEVILLE
REG. OFFICE
You are hereby notified that Fox Ridge, in accordance with G.S. 143-215.10C, must apply for
coverage under an Animal Waste Operation General Permit. Upon receipt of this letter, your farm has
thirly 30 days to submit the attached application and all supporting documentation. In accordance
with Chapter 626 of 1995 Session Laws (Regular Session 1996), Section 19(c)(2), any
owner or operator who fails to submit an application by the date specified by the
Department SHALL NOT OPERATE the animal waste- system after the specified date.
Your application must be returned within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to submit the
application as required may also subject your facility to a civil penalty and other enforcement actions for
each day the facility is operated following the due date of the application.
The attached application has been partially completed using information listed in your Animal
Waste Management Plan Certification Form. If any of the general or operation information listed is
incorrect please make corrections as noted on the application before returning the application package. The
signed original application, one copy of the signed application, two copies of a general location map, and
two copies of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan must be returned to complete the application
package. The completed package should be sent to the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
If you have any question concerning this letter, please call J R loshi at [phone] extension
363 or Ed Buchan with the Fayetteville Regional Office at [phone].
Sin rely,
31,'- A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Permit File (w/o encl.)
Fayetteville Regional Office (w/o encl.)
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Ms. Audra Staggs
Route 2, Box 274
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Dear Ms. Staggs:
A��
�EHNR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 31, 1997
SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Inspection
Fox Ridge Farm (All)
Registration No. 04-30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 06
Anson County
On March 25, 1997, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality inspected the subject swine facility. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance
Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the
information provided and observations made during the inspection that the facility was in
compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part.0217 at the time of the inspection. Please refer to the
comments section on the rear of the inspection form for information regarding your facility.
Please be aware that all swine facilities with a liquid waste collection system designed for
a minimum of 250 hogs must have a certified waste management plan on or before December
31, 1997. The district NRCS office, Agriculture Extension office, or the Division of Soil and
Water have specialist available to assist you with upgrading of existing facilities and
certification.
If You have any questions concerning this matter, please call John Hasty at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
/ofC. Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Operations Branch
Central Files
Audry Oxendine - FRO DSW
Robert Horton - Anson Co. NRCS
Wachovla Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville 0 FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28MI-5043 11 `� An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50 �6 recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection tMIT
FFacilkyNamber Time of Inspection 16:6V Use 24 hr. Nme
Fum Steam Ce,f- Total Timc (in hours) Spent onReviewr 2 .
or Inspection (Indudes travel and processing)
Farm Name: , CX �P— so �!
Owner NXM 16r k G►...N l ? � Pbone No- _[-704) 9,L(a "1 Z-„--
MaUlng Ads: �. 22.2 N C Z 2?)76
Chidu Repiesentativra r a- 5 star:
Caked Operator. /.,�-L�"Operator Cerdflestton Number:
Lor=tiou of Farm:
OKLocul±ud�We-S4 I;IAP- G S9- H.-LI !:L-- Z.f ;s lr+iljjg.5AVijjV-
Latitude a Longitude •
0 not Operational Date Last Operated:
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
�u.. _..,R`.,�_- ,r.. x- pig �r�"r'i>cws��ec°:.'Y_.Lr <- yr';��Y..�a..,r.y.��':}sxW'sj"r•�,�"[cR".Yy..i�k�p�—k.s^W S,S'i1T:,i." �+t.,.'i.,
�,z
Wears to Feeder
Feeder to Finish %,ADNoo- Beef
arrow to Wean �" rya ;� E
Famm 12 Feeder ` -
F w t sh 0 Other 'Ij►pe of Livestock
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Pundr L Subsurface Drains Present _
'� �• �� � ^�+' '� '� �' .- - .
I. Art there any buffers that need maintenaaairmV.0 meat? 13 Yes P(No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 13 Yes CkNo
t If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man made? ❑ Yes © No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ) E3 Yes E3 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow is gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yea, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes D No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the opc mtion? 13 Yes 0116
4. Was time any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than funs a dischargc? 13 Yes ;d No
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/bolding ponds) ngni D Yes AjNo

fL is why not is eompiiance with any applicable seem* ausna? D Yes Igo '
7. Did the miry fin to have a ce daw operator to tesp S16 dMV (if imapa om sifter I AN7)? D Yes FNo
8 Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be propaly closed? D Yes No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Foadsl
9. Is MuchvW fieelmd less trans adequate? D Yes 4No
Fteebomrd (f!x ... Lgoam 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 Lagoon 4
ZOW .
10. is seepage observed from any of the stmchaW
11. Is ervsiom6 or any other threats to the integrity of any of the stumm observed?
12. Do nay of the yes need '
(If any of questions 9-12 was inswered yes, and the dtnation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWG
U. Do nay of the structures rack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping ksveW
Waste Aaolicatioa
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in exaeas of Wlulp, or runoff eatersag waxers of the State, notify DWI) X
13. Crop type _.rocUe 11krr4 Lka�k tt aver
16. Do the active crops differ with those design ted in the AnimaWaste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility #rave a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
IS. Does the cover crop need improvtment?
19. Is here a rack of available irrigation equipment?
For ertified FacUlties-Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Managamaat Plan raway avanwe?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with tbt Aniarml Waste Management Plan in any way?
2L Does revord ]seeping need impmvemenl?
23. Does faflity require a foilow rap visit by same apvc:y?
24. Did ReWewaror fid to dins rMewliimspwoon with owner or operator in charge?
D Yea ;3 No
D Yes ANo
DYes ;4No
D Yes )kNo
D Yes PNo-
Oyes' D No
D Yes gNo
D Yes IgNo
D Yes %Nvo
D Yes PNO
© Yes �No `
D Yes fANo
D Yes jRNo
D Yes )M No
Comments (refer ir;`qusstioa #):: Edam say,YES. aasvvers amdloraay Yeco�meadshon§ or ,�Q �� ` � �- �.
Use_drawrngs offacili�;to ��er ez�p�am_s<tu�c�s.:(use add�oma� paSea as=ntc'j,�;�.�� -�µ—� ;� j -��
l� Age or OcL45 Over3-eded Ae-e-� '6 be rtr+ DT CALOMP
Reviewernaspeetor, Name'
_ M
RedwvvAector Signature: Dade

..-._.....-- ------ ---� _ -------------- --.� ._._. � facilety Nrursbcr: _ .
t
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record 0 y
Date:�
Tune: f r.
General Information:
Farm Name: a -4 r County:
Owner Name: rr1 one No:SI J�
On Site Representative: Integrator: �ur ^oA
Mailing Address: l
Physical
Latitude: 1 J Longitude: I J
Operation Description: (based on design characteristics)
Typ No. of Animals Type of Poultry No. ofAnimaLs 7jpe of Cattle No. of Animals
CISow 0 Layer O Dairy
ntsery _7926k> O Non -Layer O Beef
O Feeds
OtherType of Livestock Number of Animals: O_
Number of Lagoons: I -- - (include in the Drawings and Observations the freaboard of each lagoon)
Facility Inspection -
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than Ifoot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?: Yes ❑
Is seepage observed from the lagoon?: Yes C]
Is erosion observed?: Yes ❑
Is any discharge observed? Yes ❑
O Man-made U Not Man-made
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?: Yes ❑
Does the cover crop need improvement?: Yes ❑
(fin the crops which need improvement)
Setback Criteria Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application?
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application?
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
'Is animal waste land applied of spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream?
AOI — January 174M
aw
i
Yes ❑
Nq%
.Yes ❑
No 014-_
Yes ❑
No9
Yes (3
No)B-. .

Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes 0 No�
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes 0 No
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes ClN
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes 0 No
Explain any Yes answers;
Signat<ue: Dane:
eC Fachlby Assessment Un& Use Atrarhmmu #Needed
Drawings or Observations:
2, 9
' _. - _ � n•+rfr.lr ..-w. wr-._ _ •+a. tin• ���`Irr+rfib.MT�'+V��^�`��a''�T.,�«..e--..
aY •'fw.a./mow �1 -r••1' '.1 r,.6J /it:f
AOI — Jaau=717.19%

I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
,lames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F�
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
July 17, 1995
Ms. Audra Staggs
Production Manager
Post Office Sox 759
Rose hill, N.C. 28458
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Murphy Farms # 2301, 0317, Isolation,
4563 and 2838
SR 1621
Anson County
Dear Ms. Staggs:
Thank you for assisting in a cursory inspection of the subject farms on
July 14, 1995. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection Report
for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the
information provided and observations made during the inspection that the
facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217 and the Animal Waste
Management is being properly conducted.
This office requests that you maintain a copy of your certified waste
management plan and waste management records at the farm for future
inspections.
If you have questions regarding this inspection, please do not hesitate
to contact this office at [phone].
cc: DEM Compliance Group
Sincerely,
I ,r
Paul E. Rawls
Environmental Specialist
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Farm No.
Fox Ridge Farm/ Murphy
July 14, 1995
2301
Farms
Mailing Address Facility Telephone Number
Rt.2 Box 274, wadesboro, N.C. 28317 [phone]
All comments will be discussed in Section IV of this report.
E�'ixftullinl
Animal Operation tyRg: SWINE
SECTION II
y N Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste'
system)]
x _
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
JL
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
x
4.
Does this facility have a LERTIFIEU ANIMAL MAST
MANAGEMENT PLAN?
_X_ _#1_
5.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X—

AdMinistration and Program Management Y Cament§
6._.. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc'. _x_
SECTION III
Field Site Managemegt y Comments
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? X _
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? #2
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? _x_ —
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION PLAN? _ — _#3
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices? X
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION? _x_
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. 14 ft.) X _
S. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory? _x_
SECTION IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments by Mr. Russell
Sikes with the Anson County Agricultural Extension Service.
2. A detailed inspection of the spray field was not conducted at the time of
the inspection. This facility has not yet land applied waste.
3. The certified waste management plan was not reviewed at the time of the
inspection.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH &'NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Farm No.
Fox Ridge Farm/ Murphy
July 14, 1995
0317
Farms
Mailing Address Facility Telephone Number
Rt.2 Box 274, Wadesboro, N.C. 28317 [phone]
All comments will be discussed in Section IV of this report.
SECTION I
Animal
Operation type: SWINE
SECTION II
Y N Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
�(
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
_
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
X _
4.
Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT. PLAN?
_X— _ _#1_
5.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X_ _ _

Administration- -and Program -Management Y N -C-ommen t s
6.: Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc. _x!
SECTION III
Field Site a a eme Y N Comments
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? _ X
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? T _#2
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? _x_
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION PLAN? _ _#3
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices? _ X
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION? _x_
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. +/- 8 ft.) X
8. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory? _x_ T
SECTION IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments by Mr. Russell
Sikes with the Anson County Agricultural Extension Service.
2. A detailed inspection of the spray field was not conducted at the time of
the inspection. This facility has not yet land applied waste.
3. The certified waste management plan was not reviewed at the time of the
inspection.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Fars No.
Fox Ridge Farm/ Murphy
July 14, 1995
Isolation
Farms
Mailing Address Facility Telephone Number
Rt.2 Box 274, Wadesboro, N.C. 28317 104 826-6320
All comments will be discussed in Section IV of this report.
SECjION
Animal
I
Operation type: SWINE
SECTION II
Y Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system) ]
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
—L
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
x
4.
Does this facility have a CERJIFIED ANIMAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN?
_X_ _ _#1_
S.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes.of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X—

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH 8 NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Farm No.
Fox Ridge Farm/ Murphy
July 14, 1995
4563
Farms
Mailing Address Facility Telephone Number
Rt.2 Box 274, Wadesboro, N.C. 28317 [phone]
All comments will be discussed in Section IV of this report.
SECTION I
Animal
Operation tvjLe: SWINE
SECTION
11
Y R Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
JL
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
-)L _
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
x
4.
Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL VA5TE
MANAGEMENT PLAN?
X #1
5.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X_

Administration -Program Management Y9 Comments
6._. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc'. _x_
SECTION III
Field Site Management Y N Comments
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? A
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? #2
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? _x_
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION PLAN? _#3
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices? X
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION? _x_
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. +/- 8 ft.) X
8. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory? _x_
SECTION_IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments by Mr. Russell
Sikes with the Anson County Agricultural Extension Service.
2. A detailed inspection of the spray field was not conducted at the time of
the inspection. This facility has not yet land applied waste.
3. The certified waste management plan was not reviewed at the time of the
inspection.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATLWAL RE5O1MES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Farm No.
Fox Ridge Farm/ Murphy
July 14, 1995
2838/4563
Farms
Mailing Address Facility Telephone Number
Rt.2 Box 274, Wadesboro, N.C. 28317 704) 826-6320
All comments will be discussed in Section IV of this report.
SECTION
Animal
I
Operation type: SWINE
SECTION II
Y N Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? {Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
X
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
_
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
4.
Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLC
_X— _ _#1_
5.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X_ _

Administration and Program Manag ment
6__ Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc.
SECTIQN III
Field Site Management
I. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? ,
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATIQN PLAN?
S. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. +/- 6 ft.)
S. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory?
Y h Comments
Y ' N Comments
— X —
#2
_x_ —
—
_x_
_# 3
X —
SECTLQM IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments by Mr. Russell
Sikes with the Anson County Agricultural Extension Service.
2. A detailed inspection of the spray field was not conducted at the time of
the inspection. This facility has not yet land applied waste.
3. The certified waste management plan was not reviewed at the time of the
inspection.

• Inspection notes:
This complex consists
of five separate
operations and is as
follows:
2301
0317
Isolation
4563
5--barns,
1 barn
1 barn
i barn
Sow operation'
boar 60 cap
isolation 150 cap
1 truck wash
one lagoon
+/- 10.5 acres
freeboard 14'
Lagoon Location
Lat 34 08' 01"
Lon 80 07' 48"
2838/4563
5 barns
1 nursery 2000 cap
3 finish 1000 each
1 offtest
Two lagoons
1 truck wash
0.5 ac
1 barns
+/- 4 acres
Photo Time 12:20'- 12:52
one lagoon
+/- 0.5 ac.
freeboard 7'
34 08 25
80 07 45
one lagoon
+/- 0.5 ac
freeboard 8'
35 07 51
80 07 58
two lagoons
#1 truck wash
+/- 0.5 ac
#2 barn
+/- I acre
freeboard #1
8'
freeboard #2
7'
35 07 59
80 08 15

Adm i n i stra-ti on —and Program Management
6.. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc.
SECTION III
Field Site Management
I. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within I00 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved C ?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. +/- 7 ft.)
8. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory?
Y 8 Umments
_X_ -
Y N Comments
X —
#2
_x_ — —
_# 3
— X —
_X_ -- -
X — —
_x— —
SECTION IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments by Mr. Russell
Sikes with the Anson County Agricultural Extension Service.
2. A detailed inspection of the spray field was not conducted at the time of
the inspection. This facility has not yet land applied waste.
3. The certified waste management plan was not reviewed at the time of the
inspection.

FacilityNunber.
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Date:
Tune: t too
General Information:
Farm Name: — �l a�� oti,. v� �`� _County: ^ ZV+_-
Owner Name: one No•
On Site Representative: Integrator.
Mailing Address:kf -2- &X .27�
Physical
Latitude: Longitude:
QVeration Descdgti ,tom'. (based on design characteristics)
Type of Swine No. of Animals Type of Pouiny - No. of Animals Type of Cattle No. of Animals
O Sow O Layer 0 Dairy
0 Nntsery O Noz�­Layer D Beef
❑ Feeder
OtherType of Livestock oars Number of Animals: dmg 10
Number of Lagoons: (include in the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
'aoiti_tYImpection:
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than 1•foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?:
Yes
Is seepage observed from the lagoon?:
Yes 0
N
Is erosion observed?:
Yes U
No
Is any discharge observed?
Yes ❑
N
0 Man-made a Not Man -+made
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?:
Yes ❑
N?
Does the cover crop need improvement?:
Yes 0
_ No�;6
(list the crops which need improvement)
Crop type: Ff Sc,c Acreage:
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application?
Yes 0
No�
•
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application?
.Yes 0
NN
is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes 0
N
'Is animal waste land applied of spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream?
Yes ❑
No
.- ADI - Jaenar� 17,1996 - �
.' - ." • -
_ . "- '-

— -- - - jaum enwue
Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes ❑ NPU
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes 0 No4ja—
Does record keeping need improvment? Yes 0 Ne6
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes ❑ No.a—
Explain any Yes answers;
signa=C:. -• _ _ _ Date: _12
cc FadUry Assessment Unir Use Anal www if Needrd
DoAngs --QS ervagc
C�-r-4-'A C.� s �'I
W5 A...,-(- PV4"PJ tr+ - ("
- - r.n�r•1••—..n ��-._ ..., an tin...S 7l' �Ir■a�.n �'M!!a�'1F+"'�'vs'�'-..r w'�5_�.� _
woi — Janes 17,1"6

r • I �
0' Division of Water Quality
Fcility Nunifieir ' Q 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
t
- 0 Other Agency
LL_�]
Type of Visit 10 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation t;Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency `0,$tlfer ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: $ Arrival 'rime: Departure Time: t" County: /+v Region: i� D
Farm Name: trj5u
`-�
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
C C
Phone: _
Mailing -Address:
Physical Address: g
Facility Contact: r Title: Phone No:
I
Onsite Representative: I Integrator: _AU411PIL-V 4(vA_)M
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =' ='
= Longitude = ° =' = u
Design Current Design Current Design '.Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population::
❑ Wean to,Finish
Wean to Feeder A
Feeder to Finish
i A 01 1
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts Ion
Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA T NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
© NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 NE
❑ NA
0 NE
1
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
12128104 Continued

. �Facility Number: — hate of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 +
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E� NE
w- ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA (�I NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
(ie/ lirge'trees, severe erosioti; seepage, etc.)
T
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [N NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA F] NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [SNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [- NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [6NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable CroD Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Annlication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'?[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[P NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
0 wnex �A�%I sic
on �l I '`t�bS � � � ct-r b t- k 5 � re -5 �,nO(c..(Q 1J ~�e-Y � 2 U� .
Reviewer/inspector Name M 1� Phone: % j �=�1 Z
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 4y1 Date: allebo
I212SIU4 Continued

s _ .
• • • Facility Number: — Date of Inspection MEW
t I /
Required Records & Documents
I9. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WCP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[P NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
24-.—Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA]
NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
© NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
`
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
© NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
(K] NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104